women leaving the house. they grew up in an all-male environment during the world but once i got that they also encouraged their wives and especially their daughter should take their place in the world. they never whined and they never whimpered.

>> andrew o'shaughnessy history professor at the university of virginia. he examines their tactical decisions and presents his thoughts on why they lost the war. this program from the kansas city public library is an hour. [applause] >> thank you for reading the book so carefully and thank you also for wearing the monticello tie with thomas jefferson signature. i am very grateful to the kansas city public library and their outstanding book program for the opportunity to give this which is my first post publication talk about my book "the men who lost america" it i particularly want to thank henry fortunato who is the head of communications.

hud lawyer who brings the logistics so well a sign of the quality of this program and of course krusbe camp the third, the director of the library. he mentions that he was on the lord of the thomas jefferson foundation. the foundation is also my employer where i spent -- the foundation is also my employer where i spend most my time not talking about the british side of the american revolution but about thomas jefferson whose common papers we had it as part of the series started in 1950 as jefferson's papers the definitive edition and which would have taken another two generations to complete but for

monticello stepping in. and before that in cuba. i am delighted to have with me today some of my colleagues including the president of monticello leslie green beaumont [applause] as you can imagine it's a joy to drive in their and particularly lucky to have an office on the estate. this is where i wrote that book and the nice thing is it commemorates the very different moment and anglo-american relations and one that we can also a brave and one that is important to democracy on both sides of the atlantic.

now we know much about the confederacy during the civil war but relatively little about the british during the american revolution. it was a war seemingly that written should have one and its failure to do so is often blamed on poor leadership. the book is essentially a series of biographical cameos which explains why britain lost america and of course among the list of characters had to be george iii the last king of america who shared the belief of many of his countrymen that britain would cease to be a great power that lost america. he was not responsible for the policies that led to the american revolution but he became the leading war hawk and he refused to negotiate with

opposition leaders who are committed to withdraw from america. writing at the time of the second world war cambridge and herbert butterfield described him as being almost churchillian bowing that he would never surrender whilst any 10 men in the kingdom would stand by him. he fought for sacrifice. we must stretch every nerve to defend ourselves. we must run some risks for if we are to play -- ruin will inevitably ensue. this i think response to one of the great myths of both the american revolution that british did not care. they care deeply. this was one of the still myths of american history one of the longest in british history. they made a very determined effort to recover this country. lord north, this incidentally is

a painting by george iii at the height of the revolution in 1779 the irony is it is by benjamin west and american artist and it is suspected by some historians that the west was leaking his conversations with george iii back to congress. it's george iii in his most martial mode. he moved his principle palace to windsor castle and music played every evening. his government was collapsing and he simply said if others are not able i must drive. he essentially kept the government together during this period. the prime minister was lord north, a reluctant prime minister who spent much of the war -- he was responsible for the tea act.

he was responsible for the policies that led to the american revolution but when he realized that it would lead to war, he immediately regretted it and spend much of the war years trying to negotiate a compromise he kept attempting to resign that he wasn't the right sort of leader for wartime and he felt too beholden to george iii and he thought his resignation would lead to a constitutional crisis. and then there were the brothers who commanded in america after bunker hill. sir william howard and his brother lord richard howard. they were respectively great pioneers in the military tactics sir william howell was a pioneer it was the very tactics that he flawed with that were successful

as today we would think of this guerrilla warfare and his brother was a pioneer in amphibious warfare the use of the navy in combination with the army. between the two of them they managed to land over 16,000 troops on staten island in a matter of hours one afternoon. they used crafts designed by the brother lord admiral richard howell, crafts that were very like those used on d-day in which they both would literally turning to a gangplank, the bow of of the boat is the troops charged off it. both richard howell like several of the characters in this book later became a major british he wrote. he was the victor in a battle called the glorious -- in the wars of the french revolutionary

and then we have john begoin who is a rising star in the british army after his successful defense in portugal against. >> during the seven years war period which we in america call the french indian war and i'm glad we have in the audience a great expert on begoin who has published his papers recently. crosby referred and indeed favored most from american history was one of the most important people in london lord george germane who was secretary of state for america and was the main architect of the war in britain. he achieved, and he was a veteran, and military veteran and also an administrator who achieved a remarkable feat of

sending more troops to america than the generals had requested in 1776. he always blamed the generals for losing him the best opportunity of winning the war. he felt they would be more interested in negotiating a truce then and really waging a war vigorously and most historians retrospectively would argue that it does work could have one if it was in 1776. and then sir henry clinton, the commander-in-chief of the second half of the war from 1778 to 1782 who is expected to win with fewer troops and less naval support at a time when britain who was fighting both against france and. the most cerebral of all of the british generals he was obsessed more than anyone else over the

causes of the british failure. he even wrote out the dialogue of the dream in which he imagined lord cornwallis apologizing to him for the british defeat at yorktown. his memoirs are the most comprehensive and the most detailed of any general on either side of the war. charles cornwallis, the general who had the most successful post-war career was an imperial troubleshooter in india and in ireland. in ireland there was an assassination attempt on him in phoenix park. a man with utterly no pretension even though he was the most aristocratic of all of the generals. they refuse to live in the governor's palace. he always refused to draw more than one salary and he was a

restless man. he said that the army was his love and he is buried as he might have wished in service on the river ganges which is a huge memorial to him in india. sir george rodney, the only person to emerge as a hero from the american revolutionary war in britain. finally the most experienced of all government ministers of his generation. he had been a minister when many of the others were just children. he warns the cabinet that the need to build up the navy before the war even started and he inevitably came into conflict with his colleagues because he had to think about the global war. he had to consider the defense of written as a priority over

winning in america. in the words which held true of so many of the men who lost america one contemporary said set of this problems that they originated quote more in the nature of the war than the false of lord -- the punishment however fell on him. it was popular to portray these individuals as incompetent wonders than to explain british defeat in terms of poor leadership. this is equally true i would stress in britain as in america. it's most apparent of course in the movies. films like mel gibson's patriot, films like al pacino's revolution. it's pronounced in popular history. the first third of the march of

folly is dedicated to what is almost a parody of the british leadership during the revolutionary war. it even permits the academic scholars who use words like incompetent and mediocre to describe the leadership. this view that the british lost the war for incompetence always seems to me somewhat strange and it rather diminishes the achievements of commanders like washington and nathaniel green. it's also a caricature facing british leadership which only three decades later defeated napoleon. the leadership it vividly was aristocratic but it was competitive. britain had unlike much in europe but was known as private private -- in which only the oldest son inherited the title

and the majority of the wealth. the youngest sons had to fend for themselves and to be competitive and essentially to pursue careers in the army and the house of commons were some of the most attractive of all of those careers. ella terry and naval commanders had much in common with modern day military professionals. they joined in their teams. it was a life service. they often came from families that had military backgrounds. george iii in his cabinet went to great lengths to sit -- select the ablest and often the most senior commanders. when they chose the helmet others to command they skipped 105 more senior generals because the howe brothers sir william howe especially was in the

infantry as i mentioned earlier was felt less appropriate for dealing with the situation in america. his brother had planned a great hero in america. the people of massachusetts in fact even gave the memorial to the brotherhood and died during the french revolutionary war which is now the legislature of massachusetts. the men they chose when to great lengths to acquire their military backgrounds and improve their skills and knowledge. they visited the location of the battlefields. they went abroad to study and they read the latest theories. begoin suggested army officers should read french because they they -- were in french. an expression were experienced counted they served as veterans and other wars and they served

on some of the most distinguished commanders of the 18th century. they improved their military schools -- skills by beating every summer which the british army conducted annually. they demonstrated great personal courage that all of these commanders had horses shot from under them something that they shared with george washington. when a horses shot from under you it means the bullets are flying around you. with long absences from their families and the possibility that they may be killed in the war their military careers require great sacrifice and of course that remains true today. in the film the patron cornwallis is portrayed in a scholarly uniform looking immaculate sitting back in a huge house and of course is more

worried about his dogs than winning the war. the real war of cornwallis burned all his provisions and tents in wilmington north carolina. he was determined to pursue nathaniel green before he reached virginia and crossed the river. he slept just like his men without tents and without cover and his men had a huge admiration for him because he lived as they did. even though the most aristocratic of all of the commanders. the political leaders were no less impressive. the british prime minister today was admired in the united states for facing hostile questions for one hour for each week and most known as prime minister's questions but if you watch c-span as i hope you do you can

see examples of this in problems. but lord north had to face such questions for three days a week. he usually arrived in parliament when the hothouse parliament engaged in serious debates. he would often be there until the early hours of the morning sometimes 2:00 or 3:00. he regularly gave speeches and usually waited until the end of the debate for two hours without a single note because people would cheer to his notes in the house of commons. one of the great historians of all time was in the house this time. he was too terrified to speak in then he spoke. he said it gave him his education as a historian to seal the great orators of all-time debate.

the political system in britain was never so corrupt that the government could simply assume the support of the house of commons. there was no equivalent as today at the disciplined party system. the prime minister of this period had to win the confidence of the house of commons. lord north was particularly skilled in his public speaking abilities. successfully defending the government and sustaininsustainin g the government majorities in the house of commons. he was also a brilliant chancellor of the exchequer. he did two jobs. he was the head of finances will and he essentially made it possible for britain to continue to wage the war by raising money necessary. in fact this whole government is exceptionally well qualified to wage war. the members of the cabinet, many

of them were veterans. many of them had been administrators previously during the wars. they were amazingly effective tackling the huge logistical problems of fighting a war 3000 miles away. no government had attempted such a feat previously. these were not novices. furthermore if this was not a war that was easily won. it was closely fought to the very end. as late as 17 a.d. it seemed that the british might win. they pretty well destroyed the continental army in the south in their victories of charleston and then at camden. rodney came close to defeating the french fleet which would have been a real game-changer in 1780. plus important of all thanks to

clinton a general on the american side to defend benedict arnold one of the most highly respected of all of the continental generals personally made success at saratoga possible defected to the british side. this was never a linear series of defeats which is why the british continued to the very in. the difference between success and failure is often very thin. horatio gates who defeated the british at saratoga was himself defeated by cornwallis backing camden and cornwallis was of course later defeated by washington and yorktown. admiral degrasse who defeated rear admiral thomas graves in the battle of chesapeake which

was essential to the american victory at yorktown. he was himself defeated only a few months later by rodney at the battle of the saints. in fact he was captured and one of the most major victories of the entire century. rodney was britain's greatest history before nelson. indeed this book is somewhat counterintuitive. it would suggest many opportunities were lost to defeat the british budget earlier and due to the quality of the troops and the leadership they managed to last so long. these leaders faced major problems which almost precluded success in america. if i had to give a postage stamp version of my argument which is often required at cocktail parties and in social settings it would be that britain had an

army of conquest and an army of occupation. some state of the war they took every american city but they could never occupy the territory. every time they started to spin out there would be insurgencies led by people who today are american folk heroes come for men like thomas sumpter and marion fox. the british authority collapsed in new jersey in the winter of 1776 in 1777. it collapsed in pennsylvania in 1777. it collapsed in the carolinas in 178021781. their main problem was the revolution was popular. now this may not, so startling insight to this audience were to the average layman but it's a

very important antidote to a new scholarship that emphasizes the cynicism among ordinary americans, the neutrality, the loyalists him and the disaffection among citizens. in modern-day newspeak the patriot base was wrote that the the -- roosevelts. before one shot had been fired by lexington and concord britain has effectively lost political authority in america. the patriots successfully wrestled from the local governments the assemblies into the courts. they crucially gained control of the militia who police to the local populations and -- as john sade has argued the militia

imbued many ordinary americans with the revolutionary spirit. with the withdrawal of the british in march of 1776 the british army have been driven out of all of these 13 mainland states in america. they almost lost before they even began. they thereafter became the process of free conquest and reconstruction. when the they marched south from canada with horatio gates and in the continental army. after taking ticonderoga we expected that the population would be relatively supportive of the british. but by the time he reached saratoga he was outnumbered by virtually 421. he likened his opponents to many

headed hydra. this is the figure and mythology of which grew new heads every time one was cut off. he argued that if the smallest loyalists or loyalists appraising somewhere in the hampshire's or somewhere in new york or connecticut he could have won. and virtually a mirror version of the begoin's march self cornwallis marched north and successfully defeated the remnants of the continental army in the battle of camden in august 1780. but like begoin he found it more and more difficult to gain even the most basic intelligence about geography. he was completely outnumbered by the time he reached yorktown. the fact is the british had never anticipated having to occupy america.

they predicated the war in the belief that the majority of americans supported written. they believe that the revolutionary leadership was in the minority. they described it as a little then did he. this seemed to be based and this is crucial from my point of view , seem to be based on seemingly good information available to them. the view was supported by american loyalists exiles living in london. people like joseph galloway of philadelphia who said right up to the time of yorktown, four out of five americans support the british. their belief seemingly was confirmed by the efforts to suppress dissension by the patriot committees of safety. it should also always be emphasized that like most

revolutions this was also a civil war. after 1776 it was indeed typical for the continental army to recruit the same numbers as they had done earlier. thomas paine complained about what he called the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot whose dissension and disaffection in the continental army and some of the ranks in pennsylvania and new jersey. in 1778 after the less lord jeffrey amherst the most trusted of the military advisers told the government that they would have to double the number of british soldiers in america when they were also fighting france and. the very presence of the british army gave american support.

the two sides increasingly regarded one another as foreign. one of my favorite quotes is a british officer who said that he every day cursed columbus and all of the discoveries, all the discoveries of the diabolical country. [laughter] ..

>> it had no allies most of britain's wars previously are what you call the french and indian war or the seven years' war the british won

fakes to frederick's the great of prussia that tied down the french troops in europe while the british succeeded to sweep canada d.c. the the french in canada. saying america was conquered in germany. but britain had no allies in europe and this set of huge implications even through 1778. they did not mobilize the british army and navy was overstretched with the

caribbean central america and the british isles. with the revolutionary war in fact, his defense of britain became a major priority with threats there out the summer of 1778 with the french and spanish invasion the most serious threat since the spanish embargo. a.m. was always to have the navy that could defeat france and spain in a single fall but clinton had crowed a big new york under the british governor of new york the son of a natural --

admiral a hint if there was an ardent -- and deviancy the rbc be cut off and that is exactly what happened at yorktown. virtually the only time in the 18th-century the british navy was defeated in order of 1778 the british had to give up the occupation of philadelphia then they would try to win the war with your troops and ships in america. the chance of british success were once undermined by the political system. the rb today would call it a fragmented system.

the chancellor is not expected to unite the policies toward the idea still in evolution and so this is still part of the 18th century that is overwhelmed by the logistics of the army 3,000 miles west and it consumed 33 tons of food per day than the british failed to conquer that territory than essentially had to give modern provisions directly from britain. also concerned apart from

prussia and austria that as much as 43% of sending the debt -- funding vedette -- the dead and it is one of the major reasons is also a problem for the government finally to prevented the possibility for continuing the war. and the cornwallis' army the main british army around

agusta, the canada in the northwest. churchill thought it could be a minor setback like saratoga in they should go one. in the summer 1954 the public was unanimous behind the government. the with the outbreak of war you have the first war petitioning movement in britain because the cause was a brilliantly espoused from scott. the government or any

government of the 18th-century in the right one with the debates of the house of commons. the government maturities' collects. as historians recall is inevitable. they're very aware that talk is argued they may have prevailed against a less capable. but those that the british

officers were around the middle of the war to british reluctantly came to expect general james came to regret from 1775 when he said the americans were sent to fight. he admitted to the house of commons that he'd never saw those regiments and then the most hated of all to pay some of the highest compliments to his father he praised general greene for judiciously to the march to virginia.

it marks the wisdom and bigger of the american and british. lieutenant general johnson respected the skills from warfare when he saw the most excellent marksman would be helpful in warfare. and the other was forced into their confidential army but were not as good as the english themselves. they would marvel at the achievement of the soldiers. he has'' of 100 years ago that alex of the multitude of rubble with they enter

into a close distance with crowned heads. he paid tribute to the poor fellows his testimony was all the more powerful and later became filled the being author of military tactics and the commanding general. "the men who lost america" preserve the rest of the british empire through the caribbean. not just a story of defeat. we should be tied of the books said men who want canada. [laughter] by the end of george said third rain the largest empire of world history was of the global population it was not intellect that

empire that the sun never sets. think you. [applause] >> we have time for some questions. >> please go to the microphone. >> how many germans were here? >> i can give you the number is exactly but one-third of the british army and by the end 37% but i think it is about 50,000 serving of course, you are probably aware a good proportion

stayed on to live in america after word. i always worry -- wondered about the german names. [laughter] it was fun to write this book in a place where some of the seeds of the war were in the british army from saratoga was kept for over a year it including many germans that i can tell you were still there. [laughter] >> i've read the the revolutionary war was england's day nom. could you comment about the problem of the populace getting behind the war in england?

america was never behind the war in vietnam like they were with growth were to. -- world war ii. and to keeping the enemy from each other, the south vietnamese looks less same to the american soldiers. >> there are some parallels. those that i know that their influence but it was very difficult but it is one of the reasons the british never restored soon go government to the areas it conquered because they read never certain who was on

their side. there is a lot of similarities. essentials become the this but to defeat. there are other examples like the 1930's and seems the key what about what of the loyalist officers in to the initial reluctance to recruit american loyalists in to the british army? how did that defect for the war effort? >> those who were most

submissive of their abilities i think one of the major defects to realize how many troops were involved one biography is not in here but i talk about all lots is general gage. married to an american in had been in america for 20 years at the end is the place he underestimated them but he suddenly woke up and said britain will need at least 20,000 troops in just the sheer force will send them running.

and to gauge that was essentially removed but what i was saying earlier is better to of lot of it was a modern day habit of hubris that believes the skills needed in a short time. >> we were promised at least one story of the caribbean. could you deliver please. [laughter] >> absolutely. i wrote my first book about the british caribbean and why the americans did not rebel but this story which

was the first hechinger it is a dutch whorish feted is the flag of the united states and so we sought in salute but it was a very necessary component. many of the could supplies supplies, most of us today think but he hasn't this

fictitious company that was bringing stuff and weapons a and ammunition and money coming was very rich but there were speedboat cent to out read them and they tried to out of the british naval ships. >> i read a poem for hill was such a trauma for the staff that this had a real impact on their behavior to make it impossible in this opportunity. what is that true? >> i never found any reference in the documents were a general says but i do

believe he has had in a fact but we realized it was a much stiffer challenge said he expected. you should also remember he did not -- did not do what was necessary to one -- to win the war but the point of just defeating americans in battle of he did things that the leash would implode he had one of the biggest compulsions to send it id with any battle.

a and with high proportion. >> before the revolutionary war how could the leaders not take that to give americans voting rights? it could have fed avoided at that point. >> fed decision to close to war is not but when americans had resisted the terms they withdrew. they could never understand

tradition. they would pay $1.50 to the english man. what are they complaining about? they also get free administration and but today as a package. [laughter] >> essentially they came to believe that we should remember in the modern age if you appease people you need to be firm from the very start. it is remarkable that the british tried to appease americans in the early stages one of the victims from the crowd in boston even as he was dying he said

the restraints he probably would have behaved. [laughter] [applause] >> annapolis is the claim to fame for the civil war it

was for prisoners of war that were released by confederates for parole. then they set out. one was as jefferson parish said in the largest was at the naval academy. deny was told so all the parole ben would be brought there a and loaded onto transports and sailed up the bay and then pretty sure annapolis. they were all in one place. so they would get off when they declared the exchange of 1,000 prisoners. as the parole these came into annapolis during 1862 there was no place to put

them. every square space was occupied with a tent so they move to the camp 2 miles southwest of annapolis and they thought this would be fined to keep the men out of trouble and we but as it turns out to 2 miles was too far to walk and they also pretty much ravaged the farms in the area in destroyed the crops in broken to the farm houses also even though they were out in the country with all the room to grow favorite in the habit from there was more for the camp and in

august of 1863 it was 2 miles outside of annapolis. >> the kids a varied with their conditions including the population. that period also widely because after a large battle maybe 10,000 paroled men after an exchange you could have a couple thousand so when there were very few people you had enough of everything but they're usually not enough notice was given to the camp where the prisoners are flooding in and then they receive been outdoors not having

enough food or supplies. the problems of the parole camp they had access to their own representative if the conditions were bad they would write to hold them and their representatives would go to the commissary general and the complaints went full circle to the commander of the camp that was doing his best but was difficult to manage a population that fluctuated that much. also there were naughty enough guards so they found it easy to leaf whenever if dave wanted it as but with these fat but they had to

beg borrow and steal from another regiment that they say they would not give man up but this is very difficult to keep men under some kind of control of either of the salon. i have perked up a lot of for me towns put to be one disciplined by a 18641 soldier described it as the worst example of the army town. before the war it was still little town of 2,000 people and by 1864, there were

gambling banks, the saloons saloons, and then were constantly steady involved in murder was not uncommon there is a lot of cases where civilians were found with their throats slashed because the men were trying to get close to desert. men were released but some of those could be hundreds of miles away with few guards to keep their name the need to push them back to the battle. you may have wondered to kurds trying to escort one or two prisoners that are being exchanged but then to

have fewer than what they started out with comic they did not want to go back can't fight again. but we had no idea who they belong to what we found them but all the information was taken from them. the first day, and the first place. it was a constant struggle to see where these men belong and some light because they showed cowardice with the captures. say that i have a